MARIJUANA BY PRESCRIPTION ONLY

Some lawmakers would rather juggle nitroglycerin than debate an issue
as volatile as the medical use of marijuana. But a consensus seems to
be slowly developing that marijuana should be treated like a
prescription sedative: dangerous but still useful to the seriously
ill.

The medicinal marijuana debate has moved out of the shadows and into
the mainstream of American politics in recent years. Since California
voters in 1996 removed criminal penalties for qualifying patients who
use marijuana with a doctor's recommendation, seven other states have
passed similar laws. Some 30 states have laws on their books that
recognize in some way the medicinal value of marijuana, disputing the
Office of Drug Control Policy, the nation's "drug czar," which has
opposed such recognition.

The result, as the issue makes its way through the laboratory of the
states, has been an oddly unsettled legal balancing act. States are
not legally required to enforce federal laws and federal agents have
been too preoccupied with serious drug offenders to concern themselves
much with medicinal marijuana patients.

Now the debate has reached the chambers of Springfield in bills
introduced by Democratic Sen. Carol Ronen of Chicago and Republican
Rep. Angelo "Skip" Saviano of River Grove.

Under these measures, patients diagnosed with a debilitating illness
could be issued a state registration card that would permit them to
legally possess no more than six plants and one ounce of cannabis.

Proponents cite scientific evidence that marijuana can offer relief
from pain, nausea and other symptoms associated with HIV, glaucoma,
chemotherapy and some other serious maladies. Opponents argue that
other drugs work better than marijuana at treating such symptoms
without the accompanying euphoric "high."

That may be true, according to a March 1999 study by the National
Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine. But the study went on to
conclude that, although some medications are more effective than
marijuana, "they are not equally effective in all patients." Different
people respond differently to the same treatments, which is why
treatment decisions are better made in doctors' offices than in police
stations.

Maryland legislators struck a compromise last year after heated
debate. They reduced criminal penalties to no more than $100 for those
who can convince a judge that they use marijuana to relieve symptoms
of a chronic or life-threatening illness. The legislature stopped
short of treating marijuana like a prescription medicine, but it took
a major step toward eliminating a widely perceived injustice.

On this, the public appears to be way ahead of the legislators. A 1998
poll by the Center for Governmental Studies at Northern Illinois
University found 67 percent of Illinois residents believe "doctors
should be allowed to prescribe small amounts of marijuana for
patients." Significantly, the poll also found that the respondents
thought the support for medical marijuana would be much lower than it
actually was.

Such differences between perceptions and reality may account for the
cold feet many legislators feel about even mentioning the words
"medical" and "marijuana" together out loud. Americans have taken a
nuanced approach, according to polls. Most support legalizing
marijuana for the ill, but not for other use. With that, the public
shows admirable thoughtfulness on this issue. So should legislators.